But this concept does not represent the existing theoretical understanding of the FFM (McCrae et al., 1996). Consistent with this discrepancy between the FFM and this CFA representation, CFA tests of the FFM with the NEO PI-R do not fit the data well (Church & Burke, 1994; McCrae et al., 1996). Whereas confirmatory fit index values of .90 or greater are considered indicative of acceptable model fit (Kline, 2005), McCrae et al. (1996) reported confirmatory fit index values of .55 for a model in which the five factors were orthogonal and .60 when the five factors were allowed to correlate. The poor fit is to be expected: It is not the case that the five factors define coherent, theoretically primary entities, such that variation in the five factors uniquely causes variation in their assigned facets. The facets were not designed to be, and are not understood as, alternative expressions of a common trait. That model is not the one described by McCrae et al. (1996), and it does not fit the data.
